The Trump administration announced on February 26, 2025, that it is terminating more than 90% of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) foreign aid contracts, effectively slashing $60 billion in global assistance.
This drastic measure, detailed in an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press and corroborated by federal court filings, marks a radical departure from decades of U.S. foreign policy and raises profound questions about America’s role on the world stage.
The Scale of the Cuts
The numbers are staggering. According to the administration’s own documentation, 5,800 of USAID’s 6,200 multiyear contract awards—amounting to $54 billion—will be axed. Additionally, 4,100 of 9,100 State Department grants, totaling $4.4 billion, face the chopping block.
This represents a near-total rollback of USAID’s operational footprint, leaving only a skeletal framework of programs in its wake. The cuts stem from a 90-day review ordered by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, his first day back in office, which froze all foreign assistance funds and mandated a program-by-program evaluation.
What was initially framed as a temporary pause has now crystallized into a permanent purge.
The timing of the announcement is no coincidence. A federal court order had given the administration until midnight on February 26 to lift a month-long funding freeze that had paralyzed thousands of U.S.-funded initiatives worldwide.
Rather than comply fully, the administration appears to have used the deadline as a springboard to unveil its long-term vision: a radically downsized foreign aid apparatus. Critics, including nonprofits owed billions in frozen payments, argue this is a cynical maneuver to sidestep judicial oversight.
The Supreme Court’s late intervention on Wednesday—temporarily blocking the release of billions in aid—only adds fuel to the legal and political firestorm.
Efficiency or Ideology?
President Trump, alongside ally Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency teams, has justified this move with a blend of fiscal pragmatism and ideological fervor. Both men have long decried USAID as a bloated bureaucracy, accusing it of peddling a “liberal agenda” and squandering taxpayer dollars on projects that fail to serve American interests.
The internal memo echoes this sentiment, posing three litmus tests for aid programs: Does it make America safer? Stronger? More prosperous? Programs failing this triage—apparently most of them—were deemed expendable.
Yet, the speed and scale of the cuts cast doubt on the depth of the review process. Nonprofits, in court filings, allege that Trump appointees and Musk’s teams terminated contracts “at breakneck speed” with little evidence of substantive analysis.
This suggests the decision may owe more to ideology than efficiency—a preordained outcome dressed up as a rational audit. The administration’s broader agenda, including Musk’s reported plans to shrink USAID’s workforce from over 10,000 to just 290, reinforces this perception of a deliberate dismantling rather than a measured reform.
A Humanitarian and Strategic Vacuum
The human cost of these cuts is already palpable. Thousands of U.S.-funded programs—from HIV/AIDS treatment under PEPFAR to emergency food relief—ground to a halt during the funding freeze, leaving vulnerable populations in countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Ukraine in limbo.
Even with limited waivers, such as one granted to PEPFAR on February 1, the damage is extensive. Reports of nearly $500 million in food aid spoiling due to logistical disruptions underscore the chaos unleashed by this policy shift.
Strategically, the retreat risks ceding America’s soft power to rivals like China, which has steadily expanded its own development footprint. For decades, USAID has been a cornerstone of U.S. influence, fostering goodwill and stability in fragile regions.
Slashing it so dramatically could destabilize allies and embolden adversaries, a point raised by Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, who called the move “brazen” and a blow to congressional authority.
Even within the administration, there are signs of unease—USAID’s Inspector General, fired on February 25 after warning of fraud risks amid the upheaval, is a case in point.
A Case for Retrenchment
To be fair, the administration’s defenders argue that foreign aid has long been a sacred cow overdue for slaughter. The U.S. spends billions annually on programs with questionable outcomes, they contend, and taxpayers deserve a government that prioritizes domestic needs—like infrastructure or border security—over distant ventures.
Posts on X reflect this sentiment, with some users cheering the cuts as a bold stand against waste. If the goal is to refocus resources on “America First,” as Trump has pledged, this could be seen as a fulfillment of that promise.
Yet this argument hinges on a narrow view of national interest. Foreign aid isn’t charity—it’s a tool of diplomacy and security. Cutting it so indiscriminately risks downstream costs—instability, migration surges, or lost economic leverage—that could dwarf any short-term savings.
The administration’s own memo hints at this tension, vowing to “reform” aid delivery, but offers little clarity on what replaces the old system beyond platitudes.
What Lies Ahead?
As of 9:57 PM PST on February 26, 2025, the dust is far from settled. Ongoing court battles, congressional pushback, and international outcry will shape the cuts’ final scope.
The Supreme Court’s temporary stay buys the administration breathing room, but it also ensures this saga will drag on. Meanwhile, USAID staff face forced leave or firings, and contractors brace for “many more terminations,” as one official ominously warned.
This is more than a budget cut—it’s a redefinition of America’s global identity. Whether it’s a masterstroke of fiscal discipline or a reckless gamble remains to be seen.
For now, the world watches as the U.S. steps back from a role it has played since the Cold War, leaving a void that others will inevitably rush to fill.